Mukhtiar Singh vs Gram Panchayat

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeals No. 2453 and 1942 of 1991 filed against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge dated 21.5.1991.

Plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that the order of the D.D.P.O. acting as Collector, Amritsar, dated 17.3.1987 by virtue of which he has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,78,000/- on the Plaintiff for use and occupation of the land measuring 35 kanals 12 Marlas is illegal, null and void and thus not executable. Plaintiff also claimed consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from releasing the amount of penalty determined by the Collector vide order dated 17.3.1987.

As per allegations in the plaint, it was stated that the plaintiff was in cultivating possession of the suit land as one of the co-sharers and thus the order of Collector vide which he imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,78,000/- is wholly illegal and void. This order was passed without affording the plaintiff an opportunity of hearing and to lead evidence. Since the order was beyond the competence of the Collector, the same is liable to be set aside by the civil Court.

The defendant put in appearance, filed written statement and denied various material averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint. In addition thereto, the defendant pleaded that the land was owned by the Gram Panchayat and so in illegal occupation of the plaintiff. On account of his unauthorised occupation, this penalty was imposed upon the plaintiff for use and occupation of the land in dispute. Plea was also raised that the civil Court has got no jurisdiction and that the suit is not maintainable in the present form.

On. the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

1/ Whether the order dated 17.3.1987 passed by the D.D.P.O. acting as Collector is null, void and not binding on the plaintiff ? OPP.

2/ Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction ? OPP

3/ Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit ? OPD

4/ Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD.

5/ Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action ? OPD

6/ Whether the Gram Panchayat was not served with a notice before the institution of the suit, if so, its effect ? OPP.

7/ Relief.

The trial Court after recording the evidence decided issue No. 1 against the plaintiff. The suit was accordingly dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 24.7.1989.

Before the lower appellate Court challenge was made with regard to the finding of the trial Court in respect of issue No. 1. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that penalty in terms of Rule 20-A of the Punjab Village Common Land Rules, 1964, could not be imposed upon the plaintiff on the short ground that at no time he was lessee of the land. It is only when a lessee remains in occupation of the land after the expiry of the lease period that the rule envisages imposition of penalty upon such a person. The counsel thus urged that since it is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff forcibly took possession of the land, such a penalty at exorbitant rate of 20 times could not be imposed. For this, reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in case reported as Pritam Singh v. The Collector (D.D.P.O.) Patiala (1980) 82 P.L.R. 438.

The lower appellate Court found merit in this contention of the counsel for the appellant and consequently slashed the amount of penalty of Rs. 1,78,000/- to Rs. 8900/- the loss which accrued to the Gram Panchayat on account of use and occupation during the unauthorised occupation of the land by the plaintiff. In addition thereto, the plaintiff was directed to pay 6% interest from the date of the order till its payment. Thus, the appeal was partly accepted.

Still dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, plaintiff as well as defendant have filed this appeal. Both the counsels have almost reiterated their submissions which were made by them before the Courts below. According to the plaintiff, even awarding of Rs. 8900/- for use and occupation of land is on the higher side. At best, defendant could in law claim the actual share of the crop which a tenant is duty bound to pay to his landlord i.e. l/3rd share of batai.

Learned counsel for the defendant, however, submits that the Additional District Judge erred in law in reducing the qmount determined by the Collector in proceedings under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (for short'' the Act''). Since the Collector had the jurisdiction to pass any appropriate order, the same could not be the subject matter of adjudication before a civil Court. Thus, on this ground alone, the impugned judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is liable to be reversed. Even otherwise, the possession of an unauthorised occupant is no way different from a lessee holding over. Viewed so, the Collector rightly imposed penalty of twenty times the amount of lease money upon the plaintiff.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The controversy in the present case lies within a very narrow compass. The Gram Panchayat filed an application u/s 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short ''the Public Premises Act) read with Rule 20-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules (for short ''the Rules'') for assessment and recovery of damages for unauthorised use and occupation of the land under his possession. The order of eviction was passed and a penalty of Rs. 1,78,000/- was imposed upon the plaintiff in terms of Rule 20-A of the Rules. Rule 20-A of the Rules reads as under:-

"20-A Damages- (1) If any person who is a lessee of any land vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat does not deliver to the Panchayat vacant possession of the land immediately after the expiry of the period of lease he shall, for the period he fails to do so, be liable to pay damages to the Panchayat equivalent to twenty times the amount which would have been payable to the Panchayat had the lease of such land continued during that period.

(2) The provisions contained in sub-role (1) shall be deemed to be one of the terms of each lease of land granted by the Panchayat after the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) (Third Amendment) Rules, 1978"

A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule clearly brings out that same is applicable to a lessee who remained in occupation of land even after the expiry of the lease period. It is only in such cases that this rule envisages imposition of penalty to the extent of 20 times the amount which would have been payable to the Panchayat had the lease of such land continued during that period.

Admittedly, the plaintiff was not inducted as a lessee; rather his possession is unauthorised from its inception. Such a person is liable to pay for use and occupation of land till the time the land remained under his cultivating possession. The method and basis to calculate the amount for use and occupation of an unauthorised occupant has not been provided by the Rules. Section 14 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, deals with this aspect of the matter which reads as under:-

"S.14. Payments for land occupied without consent of landlord:- Any person in possession of land occupied without the consent of the landlord shall be liable to pay for the use or occupation of that land at the rate of rent payable in the preceding agricultural year, or if rent was not payable in that year, at such rate as the Court may determine to be fair and equitable."

An unauthorised occupant is liable to pay at the rate of rent payable in the preceding agricultural year and in case no rent was payable in the year; at the rate the Court determine it to be fair and equitable. The lower appellate Court keeping in view the broad principles has determined the amount Rs. 8900/- i.e. loss for two years as the lease money of the land in dispute for one year was Rs. 4500/-. This calculation appears to be just and proper. The defendant has also been compensated by way of awarding interest at the rate of 6% from the date of order till the whole amount is paid. No illegality or infirmity is discernible in the well reasoned judgment of the Additional District Judge. Thus, finding no merit in both the appeals, the same are dismissed. The parties will, however, 0bear their own costs.